Brexit bedlam - May's EU divorce deal crushed by 230 votes in parliament

[Spidey]

11 minutes ago, sanemax said:

One of the gripes of British people was that Asylum seekers arrive in the UK , usually with a family and they get priority council housing , well , they get pushed to the top of the list because their needs are greater , they have children  

The majority of immigrants come from outside the EU, and virtually all asylum seekers. Leaving the EU will do nothing to stop these people from entering the UK.

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

some comments

 

habeas corpus is quite common in Europe, me thinks

 

you talk about EU imposing primary/treaty law in the UK

 

I see this somewhat differently.

 

EU can NOT impose treaty stuff on the UK - this I don't understand

EU can not force the UK to ratify a treaty.

 

EU imposes legal stipulations,

it is, so far, up to the UK how these are implemented, primary law or secondary law,

or administrative practice if well documented and guided by law.

 

 

 

 

The main problem is Treaty Law. If you sign up you accept it. 

[melvinmelvin]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The main problem is Treaty Law. If you sign up you accept it. 

yes,

but you don't have to sign if you don't fancy

 

 

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Loiner said:

You have about as much idea of how I arrived at my post as does the man in t'moon.  I didn't say anything was 'fact', you and your tag team claimed that. If it's in the future it can't be fact.

If it's in the future, it can be a fact. For example, the UK minimum wage will rise next April. That's in the future; and it's a fact. New laws concerning the use of drones in the UK will come into force next November. That's in the future, and it's a fact.

 

I could go on, there are may more examples of new UK laws passed by Parliament which have yet to come into force, but will over the course of the next 12 months.

 

When any law is passed, that law rarely comes into force immediately but usually does so at a specified point in the future. When any treaty is signed the provisions of that treaty don't all come into force immediately, many come into force over a period of time. That does not stop those laws or those treaty provisions from being facts.

 

You posted a list of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty was signed in 2007, with most provisions coming into force in 2009, although some will at a later date. Neither 2007 nor 2009 are in the future!

 

None of the provisions you posted are actually in the treaty. So either you made it up or your source did. As the source you gave in your original post does not contain that list and you refuse to name any other source, the only conclusion is that you do not have one and made that list up yourself. 

 

I challenge you to prove me wrong: I challenge you to name the source of your list and provide a link to it.

 

Going to answer that challenge, or provide some pathetic excuse for not doing so?

 

 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes,

but you don't have to sign if you don't fancy

 

 

You do to be in the EU! Brexit is all about revoking the 1972 ECA and off-signing.  

[7by7]

48 minutes ago, sanemax said:

One of the gripes of British people was that Asylum seekers arrive in the UK , usually with a family and they get priority council housing , well , they get pushed to the top of the list because their needs are greater , they have children  

That may be one of the gripes of some British people; a gripe fed by Leave.EU's infamous, lying poster during the referendum campaign which I posted earlier.

 

But it whatever anyone's thoughts about asylum are, it is totally false to lay any blame at the door of the EU..

 

The UK's asylum policy is, like that of all the other 27 EU members, a matter totally for the UK government. 

 

As is all other non EEA national immigration; unless the non EEA national comes under the directive because they are the qualifying family member of an EEA national exercising a treaty right in the UK. But I doubt very much that many asylum seekers fall into that category!

 

Asylum seekers do not "get pushed to the top of the (housing) list." 

 

I've already dealt with this point in reply to Bomber earlier in the topic, 

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 4:54 PM, 7by7 said:

A room in a shared flat or house or a bed and breakfast if they're lucky; a hostel which chucks them out at 9 am and wont let them back in until 6 pm for most and imprisonment in an Immigration Detention Centre for a significant minority

 

It is true, though,  that if children are involved, they may get a house or flat; if one is available; but they are more likely to be shoved into a bed and breakfast. 

 

Would you rather they be left on the street to starve? The UK is a civilised country, people like Yaxley-Lennon would probably want that; but surely you wouldn't!

 

But we are wandering way off topic here; as already said, the UK's asylum policy is, and always has been, a matter for the UK government and has never been anything to do with the EU.

[aright]

56 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

some comments

 

habeas corpus is quite common in Europe, me thinks

 

you talk about EU imposing primary/treaty law in the UK

 

I see this somewhat differently.

 

EU can NOT impose treaty stuff on the UK - this I don't understand

EU can not force the UK to ratify a treaty.

 

EU imposes legal stipulations,

it is, so far, up to the UK how these are implemented, primary law or secondary law,

or administrative practice if well documented and guided by law.

 

 

 

 

you talk about EU imposing primary/treaty law in the UK

 

The supremacy of EU laws

The principle of supremacy, or primacy, describes the relationship between EU law and national law.

It says that EU law should prevail if it conflicts with national law. 

This ensures that EU rules are applied uniformly throughout the Union.

If national laws could contradict the EU treaties or laws passed by the EU institutions, there wouldn’t be this single set of rules in all member countries.

[7by7]

24 minutes ago, aright said:

you talk about EU imposing primary/treaty law in the UK

 

The supremacy of EU laws

The principle of supremacy, or primacy, describes the relationship between EU law and national law.

It says that EU law should prevail if it conflicts with national law. 

This ensures that EU rules are applied uniformly throughout the Union.

If national laws could contradict the EU treaties or laws passed by the EU institutions, there wouldn’t be this single set of rules in all member countries.

But that only applies to EU law and regulatiuons, and only then because the members agreed by treaty that it be so,

 

Member states have complete independence in all other matters.

 

 

Addendum; before anyone says that graphic is from the BBC and therefore biased, note the tag at the bottom "Source: House of Commons Library." You can check that source EU obligations: UK implementing legislation since 1993

Quote

Calculations based on information from the UK parliamentary search database and legislation.gov.uk give the following figures for EU-related Acts and SIs for the period 1993-2014:

34,105 UK Acts and SIs

4,514 EU-related UK Acts and SIs

An average of 13.2% of UK instruments are EU-related

 

[aright]

 I don't understand your point. I was just pointing out the relationship between EU law and National Law. Do you disagree with that?

[CG1 Blue]

People asking which specific EU laws that Brexiteers object to...personally I don't want an outside body imposing ANY laws on the UK. There is no need to provide examples. 

I simply think the UK is capable of making it's own laws based on the needs of it's own citizens. 

 

And we certainly don't need any judicial supremacy over UK courts from outside our country. 

[7by7]

29 minutes ago, aright said:

 I don't understand your point. I was just pointing out the relationship between EU law and National Law. Do you disagree with that?

No, I don't disagree with that.

 

And I was simply pointing out how little UK law is actually due to the EU.

 

Do you disagree with that?

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

People asking which specific EU laws that Brexiteers object to...personally I don't want an outside body imposing ANY laws on the UK. There is no need to provide examples. 

I simply think the UK is capable of making it's own laws based on the needs of it's own citizens. 

 

And we certainly don't need any judicial supremacy over UK courts from outside our country. 

Is wtoexit the next big campaign on your take back control mission?

[nauseus]

52 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

But that only applies to EU law and regulatiuons, and only then because the members agreed by treaty that it be so,

 

Member states have complete independence in all other matters.

 

 

Addendum; before anyone says that graphic is from the BBC and therefore biased, note the tag at the bottom "Source: House of Commons Library." You can check that source EU obligations: UK implementing legislation since 1993

 

Yes the treaties are demanding, whichever way one looks at them.

 

The BBC report is not necessarily biased but it would have been better not to miss out quite a bit of text from the same article, part of which I will helpfully add for you now as the below, in italics:

 

But that's not really an accurate figure because most EU regulations don't require new UK laws. They can be implemented in the UK without new legislation, for example by simply changing administrative rules. So, the 13% figure doesn't take into account EU regulations that don't need additional UK legislation to be brought into force.

 

If you count all EU regulations, EU-related Acts of Parliament, and EU-related Statutory Instruments, about 62% of laws introduced between 1993 and 2014 that apply in the UK implemented EU obligations.

 

So, does that mean that the Brexiteers are right?

 

Not according to many expert lawyers and academics. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, some EU regulations, like those governing tobacco and olive oil production, are agreed by all member states but don't actually affect us at all because we don't have those industries here.

 

We also adopt some EU regulations that simply codify existing UK law at a European level. In other words, we would have that law anyway. But perhaps the biggest way in which it is said the 62% is inflated is because it includes within it what are known as non-legislative EU regulations, which concern matters so small or routine that many people wouldn't really recognise them as law.

 

Apart from that, what is also not mentioned is that thousands of EU laws have yet to be implemented (rubber stamped), because the sheer volume of them have overloaded the Civil Service for years. In other words there is a bloody great backlog! But the UK is still bound by them. 

 

So why 62% may be a high number, it still must be far higher than 13%!

 

 

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

No, I don't disagree with that.

 

And I was simply pointing out how little UK law is actually due to the EU.

 

Do you disagree with that?

I do.????

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The BBC report is not necessarily biased but it would have been better not to miss out quite a bit of text from the same article, part of which I will helpfully add for you now as the below, in italics:

Oddly enough, I was attempting to follow the forum's fair use policy and so not post a large quote of most of the article.

 

I was also following your example of posting a graphic without reference to text in the source. What's sauce for the goose etc..

 

One thing which you are forgetting/ignoring is that a large number of Acts and, in particular, SIs about EU law and regulations are simply amending or cancelling previous Acts or SIs.

 

Many more have no real bearing on the UK; as UK law: What proportion is influenced by the EU? says, EU regulations automatically have binding force in all EU member states, but many regulations such as those governing tobacco growing in the Canary islands have zero effect on the UK or British citizens; unless you are considering moving to the Canary Islands to become a tobacco farmer!

 

 

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Oddly enough, I was attempting to follow the forum's fair use policy and so not post a large quote of most of the article.

 

I was also following your example of posting a graphic without reference to text in the source. What's sauce for the goose etc..

 

One thing which you are forgetting/ignoring is that a large number of Acts and, in particular, SIs about EU law and regulations are simply amending or cancelling previous Acts or SIs.

 

Many more have no real bearing on the UK; as UK law: What proportion is influenced by the EU? says, EU regulations automatically have binding force in all EU member states, but many regulations such as those governing tobacco growing in the Canary islands have zero effect on the UK or British citizens; unless you are considering moving to the Canary Islands to become a tobacco farmer!

 

 

Then just paste the link. To post the incomplete article is misleading and certainly not fair! 

 

If you think that I don't post graphics without sources then give me this "example" post number. 

[7by7]

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Apart from that, what is also not mentioned is that thousands of EU laws have yet to be implemented (rubber stamped), because the sheer volume of them have overloaded the Civil Service for years. In other words there is a bloody great backlog! But the UK is still bound by them. 

 You will see from this 2009 paper that all member states have a backlog; or at least did in 2009, and that the UK's is below average.

 

But your claim that we are bound by regulations even though they have yet to be implemented here is false. From the introduction to that paper:

Quote

At the national level of the Member States, an EU directive is not effective before it has been transposed into national law.

 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 You will see from this 2009 paper that all member states have a backlog; or at least did in 2009, and that the UK's is below average.

 

But your claim that we are bound by regulations even though they have yet to be implemented here is false. From the introduction to that paper:

 

 

 

 

What paper?

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

f you think that I don't post graphics without sources then give me this "example" post number.  

My apologies; you don't.

 

You do, however, 'like' posts by other Brexiteers who do so; for example this post: 

I notice you have never said to any of them

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Then just paste the link. To post the incomplete article is misleading and certainly not fair! 

 

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 You will see from this 2009 paper that all member states have a backlog; or at least did in 2009, and that the UK's is below average.

 

But your claim that we are bound by regulations even though they have yet to be implemented here is false. From the introduction to that paper:

 

 

 

 

EU Regulations are immediately part of law. Directives more flexible in implementation but binding.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198356/EU-legislation-explained.html 

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What paper?

The one linked to! (Hint, the link's in blue and underlined; click on it.)

 

Here it is again, but made clearer for you: CLICK HERE

[CG1 Blue]

49 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Is wtoexit the next big campaign on your take back control mission?

As opposed to your give up control mission? 

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

My apologies; you don't.

 

You do, however, 'like' posts by other Brexiteers who do so; for example this post: 

I notice you have never said to any of them

 

If you had not complained about my missing links I would not have said anything. 

 

Generally, I like leave posts and if I agree with the content, I won't complain about missing links!

 

 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

EU Regulations are immediately part of law. Directives more flexible in implementation but binding.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198356/EU-legislation-explained.html 

The first paragraph of that article, the one you are referring to,  only applies to regulations which have been passed by the Council of Ministers; on which each member sate, including the UK, has a veto.

 

As these regulations immediately become part of each member state's law, i.e. are immediately implemented, then they are not among the 

50 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 thousands of EU laws (which) have yet to be implemented (rubber stamped), because the sheer volume of them have overloaded the Civil Service for years. In other words there is a bloody great backlog! But the UK is still bound by them. 

 

 

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The one linked to! (Hint, the link's in blue and underlined; click on it.)

 

Here it is again, but made clearer for you: CLICK HERE

I can see it now. No link on your first post. Anyway this paper confirms the backlog. That other countries have the same huge problem reinforces my point. Thanks. 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

If you had not complained about my missing links I would not have said anything. 

My (erroneous) comment on your not posting links was prompted by your complaint that I hadn't done so! If you had not complained about my missing link I would not have (erroneously) commented on yours!

 

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Generally, I like leave posts and if I agree with the content, I won't complain about missing links!

In other words it's ok by you for Brexiteers not to post links to their sources, but Remainers must always do so!

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I can see it now. No link on your first post. Anyway this paper confirms the backlog. That other countries have the same huge problem reinforces my point. Thanks. 

The link is there; as I said it's the underlined words in blue.

 

It does reinforce you point about backlogs; at least it did 9 years ago.

 

But it shows your follow up

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

But the UK is still bound by them. 

to be completely false.

 

BTW, I've been off work sick for the last two weeks so had plenty of time to fill. But I'm back to work tomorrow, so will have far less time to devote to this forum. No doubt you and your fellows wont miss me.

[aright]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

No, I don't disagree with that.

 

And I was simply pointing out how little UK law is actually due to the EU.

 

Do you disagree with that?

Depends on what sector you are considering

The impact of EU law varies from sector to sector. In many areas - public order, crime, defence, health - EU laws have minimal impact. But in others - workers' rights, trade - the impact is much greater because the single market and the free movement of workers are at the heart of what the EU is about and the substance of Brexit. The way we organise our NHS is not.

[bomber]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

One of the gripes of British people was that Asylum seekers arrive in the UK , usually with a family and they get priority council housing , well , they get pushed to the top of the list because their needs are greater , they have children  

your correct,but what many leave voters didnt realise is the asylum seeker is different to the EU economic worker,who come to work usually for minimum wage,the asylum seeker has no interest in working and paying tax and only to scrounge,this was not stated in the leave campaign.  

[nontabury]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

That may be one of the gripes of some British people; a gripe fed by Leave.EU's infamous, lying poster during the referendum campaign which I posted earlier.

 

But it whatever anyone's thoughts about asylum are, it is totally false to lay any blame at the door of the EU..

 

The UK's asylum policy is, like that of all the other 27 EU members, a matter totally for the UK government. 

 

As is all other non EEA national immigration; unless the non EEA national comes under the directive because they are the qualifying family member of an EEA national exercising a treaty right in the UK. But I doubt very much that many asylum seekers fall into that category!

 

Asylum seekers do not "get pushed to the top of the (housing) list." 

 

I've already dealt with this point in reply to Bomber earlier in the topic, 

 

It is true, though,  that if children are involved, they may get a house or flat; if one is available; but they are more likely to be shoved into a bed and breakfast. 

 

Would you rather they be left on the street to starve? The UK is a civilised country, people like Yaxley-Lennon would probably want that; but surely you wouldn't!

 

But we are wandering way off topic here; as already said, the UK's asylum policy is, and always has been, a matter for the UK government and has never been anything to do with the EU.

 

  There are always Exceptions. This is just one. I have read others, but too busy at the moment to go searching.  

————

  refugee status: granted 5 years' limited leave to remain in the UK.

————-

 

I”m assuming he’s taking his views, from reading many newspaper articles, relating to Asylum seekers and the houses they’ve apparently obtained.

  Are the newspapers telling little porkies, maybe,as they are now proven to be making many, with their pro remain stance.